Sorry, I guess the confusion is partially between you and the person you were replying to. The chart says LGBT, but “gay” is often used synonymously with LGBT when referring to the community (i.e. gay pride month instead of LGBTQIA+ pride month).
hmm, I suppose, but I do not like that. More often than not people are inclusive in hate but exclusive in praise. I understand ya, but I did specifically say homosexual to disambiguate. It’s a fairly common misconception that trans people are just gay people who want to deceive straight people. Being trans, however, is not connected to sexuality, it’s identity. I would have identified as a mostly straight d00d before transitioning, with a bit of pan-curiosity, now I’m solidly pan, somewhat more attracted to men.
TLDR: trans is not gay, but it’s kinda gay, and I’m double gay.
I also meant my initial reply to be more sarcastic and rhetorical, but I forgot that doesn’t come across online so well. Hope you feel better soon though.
Yeah, in my case though my sexuality flipped, didn’t change too much because I’m pan but preferences went 65/35 to 35/65. I also know someone who was gay before, and after, transitioning. And I know many who haven’t changed what gender they are attracted to.
Was mainly trying to point out they aren’t connected for any cis people who wander.
Maybe I’m underestimating their speed. I just vtcan’t imagine how a single jaguar gets the chance TO bite. I’m just imagining one punch from the silverback, and it’s OVER.
Maybe the jaguar has enough speed to surprise the gorilla, and if they bite the throat maybe thats enough. But I just don’t see the bite ever actually happening.
I think you might be over estimating the force of a gorilla punch. I mean don’t get me wrong gorillas have ridiculous strength and can do some serious damage with just a few hits.
But lions aren’t exactly glass cannons. They can take a few hits before quitting/dying. I mean they deal with things like wildebeests after all.
The context of the fight would definitely be a major factor though.
I wonder if the gorilla would be crippling the lions limbs by sheer brute force. Throwing, yanking them out of sockets, twisting and squeezing them. The lion would fight like any house cat. And the gorilla would respond like we do when playing with our house cat. Gorillas would want to hurt and stop the attacks and that means huge amounts of force. Force they are capable of.
Jaguars live in South America. Gorillas live in Africa. Even gorilla vs lion is very unlikely, since (most) gorillas live in the rainforest and African lions live in the savanna.
Leopards do attack gorillas, and they probably kill babies. But a leopard weighs, on average, about half as much as an adult gorilla, so attacks on adults might not be that common.
I’d like to put a case forward for gorillas please.
In a brawl where both parties are strong enough to survive the inital attack, the toughness of each party becomes the deciding factor. The gorilla is just much tougher by design, it’s much harder to go for the neck when it has nothing but muscle for neck, or the genitials when gorilla dong averages around 3cm small. The lion’s definitely more of a glass cannon by design.
Male gorillas and lions both top out around 500lbs. Do you think you could kill a cat the same size as you if that cat wanted you dead? With your bare hands?
Also, to add to this, mountain lions are cats that are roughly the size of humans and really aren’t much of a threat to us. I’m not saying you could kill one with your bear hands, and they have been know to kill adult humans if they can get the drop on them, but they really aren’t a huge threat head on. The safety advice for dealing them is to get aggressive, look big, throw rocks and sticks at them, and physically fight them off if they attack, as they’re usually easily driven off. If we had the physiology and relative muscle mass of gorillas, we’d probably kill them pretty easily.
The earliest known reference to Transylvania appears in a Medieval Latin document of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1078 as ultra silvam, meaning “beyond the forest” (ultra meaning “beyond” or “on the far side of” and the accusative case of Sylva (sylvam) “woods, forest”). Transylvania, with an alternative Latin prepositional prefix, means “on the other side of the woods”. The Medieval Latin form Ultrasylvania, later Transylvania, was a direct translation from the Hungarian form Erdő-elve, later Erdély, from which also the Romanian name, Ardeal, comes. That also was used as an alternative name in German überwald (“beyond the forest”) (13th–14th centuries) and Ukrainian Залісся (Zalissia).
Does ‘Title’ on the left have some meaning I don’t know about, or was it just never changed from the chart template? Are these numbers supposed to be percentages?
Yes, my bad. As wirtten at the top of the image, the numbers are percentages. E.g. the pink bar at the right (latest survey) means, that 27 or 28% of that generation define themselves LGBT+.
Absolutely loved having the shit beaten out of me in school, choked until I nearly passed out, walking home covered in spit as a group of people chased and spat at me, and culminated in them trying to cut off one of my thumbs
The data doesn’t really make sense, more than 50% of the population would be LGBTQ+? 🤔
Edit: Thank you, I’ve had enough people making it clear that it’s the graph title that is misleading and it’s the total of the respective generation’s population and not total of the country’s population. No need to correct me again!
What makes you think 50%? The highest percentage in one particular age group is about 28% meaning the average of the whole population is of course much lower.
Percentage of total for each generation. Your assumption of this info is that we should add them together. But if you look at the opposite numbers (percentage of those not identifying as LGBT+) you get 97% + 96% + 93% + 84% + 72% giving us a grand total of 442%.
Obviously you can’t have more than 100% of anything but it does illustrate that addition is not the method we should be using.
Instead we average them. Giving us 11.6% of the total population identifying as LGBT+.
The real information we’re seeing is that the amount of those who identify as LGBT+ increase with every generation.
Ah yes, you’re right. I read it as “% ot total population of that specific age group” and I guess that is what is meant, but it is not very well phrased indeed.
“More than one in five young Americans (18-29 years) identify as LGBTQ (22%). One in ten people ages 30-49 (10%), 6% of people between 50 and 64 years, and 3% of people 65 years or older identify as LGBTQ. Twenty-four percent of Gen Z Americans (aged 18 to 25) identify as LGBTQ.”
Say of the whole population GenZ is 25% and GenY is also 25% (for convenience). If then 28% of GenZ identify as LGBTQ+ that would be 28%*.25= 7% (25% of 28%, or 1/4 of 28%). For GenZ maths would be 16%*0.25=4%. So these two groups would in total contribute that 11% of the total population is LGBTQ+.
I didn’t take the time to analyse compared to each generation’s population, but the graph is badly titled and it’s indeed % of their respective generation’s total population.
Percentage of total for each generation. Your assumption of this info is that we should add them together. But if you look at the opposite numbers (percentage of those not identifying as LGBT+) you get 97% + 96% + 93% + 84% + 72% giving us a grand total of 442%.
Obviously you can’t have more than 100% of anything but it does illustrate that addition is not the method we should be using.
Instead we average them. Giving us 11.6% of the total population identifying as LGBT+.
The real information we’re seeing is that the amount of those who identify as LGBT+ increase with every generation.
It’s that of all extant (surviving) members of each generation, this percentage OF them identifies as queer. 3% of the silent generation means 97% of them don’t.
4% of boomers means 96% of boomers don’t.
7% of gen-x-ers means 93% of them don’t.
16% of doomers millennials means 84% of millennials don’t.
28% of zoomers means 73% of zoomers don’t.
A whopping (97+96+93+84+73)= 443% of people are straight? No, that is not the case.
According to the US Census bureau as of 2022, The silent generation makes up 5.49% of the population (of whom 3% are LGBT). 3% of 5.49% = 0.16%
The boomers make up 20.58% of the population (of whom 4% are LGBT). 4% of 20.58% = 0.82%
Gen X makes up 19.61% of the population (of whom 7% are LGBT). 7% of 19.61% = 1.37%
Millennials make up 21.67% of the population (of whom 16% are LGBT). 16% of 21.67% = 3.47% Zoomers make up 20.88% of the population (of whom 28% are LGBT). 28% of 20.88% = 5.85%
The remaining 11.77% of the population are not represented on this graph and comprise the vanishingly small remains of the greatest generation and gen-α. If we were to assume that gen-α were 0% LGBT, that would mean 11.67% of the total population are LGBT. If 100% of gen-α were LGBT, that would mean 23.44% of the total population, which is equally unrealistic. Following the trends we see here, I would expect no more than 50% of the gen-α cohort would identify as LGBT, and more likely less. At most, the segment of the population at large who would identify as LGBT at present time is probably LESS than 17.56%
The silent generation is interesting. Presumably the percentage is going up because the overall number of people remaining is significantly going down. Therefore we can conclude that being LGBTQ increases life expectancy.
I think if you are talking about a few percentage points then that is well in the margin of error (especially as these are different studies if I understand that correctly)
I would argue a very different take on that data. We know stress reduces longevity due to weakened immune systems, higher blood pressure, and various other factors that go along with high levels of stress. I would say that it’s more of the silent generation feeling comfortable with finally coming out as who they are rather than being LGBTQ+ increasing lifespan. In fact I’d say it probably reduced a lot of their lifespans due to constant stress of “being found out” along with the physical attacks that were far more common in their time.
While that’s a terrible thing, I think we’re going to see what the true percentage of people that identify as LGBTQ in the coming years. A good comparison is left handed people. Before it was taboo and looked down upon. After it become normalized the percentage of left handed people quickly jumped to 10% and has remained there more or less.
lemmy.dbzer0.com
Active